Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that There will always be many more target system states than model states for any computational model

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Digital physics frameworks (Wolfram, Fredkin) propose that physical reality itself is fundamentally discrete and computational at the Planck scale.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the target system's state space is itself finite and discrete, a sufficiently fine-grained computational model can achieve a bijective mapping with physical states.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim's force depends on assuming continuous physical state spaces, which is a substantive metaphysical commitment, not an established fact.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The argument conflates ontological states with physically distinguishable states, but quantum mechanics imposes fundamental limits on state distinguishability via the uncertainty principle.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If no physical process can distinguish between two target system states, they constitute one physical state for all scientific purposes, potentially equalizing model and target cardinalities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The faithful model assumption implies the nonlinear model state space is a faithful representation of the possibilities in the physical space of the target system
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.No matter how fine-grained the model state space is made, many different ontological states of the target system will map into the same epistemic state of the model
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Computational models require discretization of equations, which further limits the number of representable model states
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.